If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The reason Lois had the kid in Superman Returns was because she was intimate with Clark (once) in Superman II. The Christopher Reeves/Margot Kidder movie set up that plot point, and they went with it by saying that she had got pregnant. I don't really like the story they came up with for Returns either, but calling the character slutty because her and Superman were intimate is a bit much. Yes, she moved on to another man after Superman left for 5 years, but that hardly makes the character slutty. If anything, it makes her human.

I call her slutty because she obviously moved on from superman with another man... not 5 years later, but soon enough that cyclops never even had a CLUE that it wasn't HIS kid.

And neither did Lois. She's shacking up with people so fast she doesn't have a clue who's fathering the kids... then yeah, I lose a lot of respect for the character of lois.

Superman was gone for 5 years... but he could have been gone 3 months, doesn't really matter.

That whole 'super-baby' subplot was a terrible direction for them to take superman. On the BEST side... he's an absentee father, who's knocking gals up and ditching the planet like James T Kirk..... on the worst side, if he wants to get back with lois, he has to bust up an 'apparently' loving family to do it....

Horray for 'modern' writing.

Of all the nitpicky things I didn't like about Man of Steel.... nothing REALLY annoyed me on par with THAT story...

and frankly, Superman returns was an awesome movie too! The whole 'does the world need him', trying to fit back in after being gone... seeing people move on and the world rejoice that he's back... Kryptonite island... And nothing before or since has matched the awesome of that plane rescue scene....

it was a great concept. But bringing the kid in muddied up the awesome.

Shaky cam isn't needed for any of these new movies. It was some dumb concept an idiot in Hollywood came up with who thought it'd be a way to put the viewer into the action. NOT!!! It's just an annoying distraction. I don't even like shaky cam when the camera is recording real action.

I enjoyed the movie greatly(even if it was a bit long) I espected the lack of trunks(that's what ther red"undies" actually are trunks like wrestlers wear) but other then that and letnh I can't really find any complaints(and it was waay better than last years batman)

Is MoS really polarizing or is it more of a skewed perspective from some of the fanbase? The movie seems to be doing good numbers as far as I'm aware and overall I think the general reception to it seems positive.

Is MoS really polarizing or is it more of a skewed perspective from some of the fanbase? The movie seems to be doing good numbers as far as I'm aware and overall I think the general reception to it seems positive.

I just saw it last night. I had read this whole thread before going to see it cause I like reading up reviews on movies before I see them.

I have to be honest and say I don't know how anyone could have negative stuff to say about the movie, I mean sure you could pick a part small things but overall the movie was amazing. It was really well done and I can't wait for the next one!

Is MoS really polarizing or is it more of a skewed perspective from some of the fanbase? The movie seems to be doing good numbers as far as I'm aware and overall I think the general reception to it seems positive.

I'm sure there are the internet nerds over on comic book fan forums out there spending their time picking the movie apart. I haven't seen it yet, but from everything I've read so far on here and on other sites, the movie sounds pretty compelling. I'm probably going to wait until the DVD comes out since figuring out the multiple bus routes it'd take to get to the local cinema is just a head ache.

Shaky cam isn't needed for any of these new movies. It was some dumb concept an idiot in Hollywood came up with who thought it'd be a way to put the viewer into the action. NOT!!! It's just an annoying distraction. I don't even like shaky cam when the camera is recording real action.

It's also the reason I had to leave in the middle; I like to watch a film without needing Dramamine for the 2-D version. Seriously, I was fine with armors flitting around like crazy in the final scenes of Iron Man 3, but watching Lois get coffee in this film made me nauseous. Even with the quiet scene with Lois talking to Perry, the camera was wobbling all over the place.

"I will use this power for all the good that can be done, to work for peace, to encourage virtue, and above all, to preserve life in all its forms..." Superman

It's also the reason I had to leave in the middle; I like to watch a film without needing Dramamine for the 2-D version. Seriously, I was fine with armors flitting around like crazy in the final scenes of Iron Man 3, but watching Lois get coffee in this film made me nauseous. Even with the quiet scene with Lois talking to Perry, the camera was wobbling all over the place.

saw it.. was so hyped for the film for months.. over the yr. then i watch it.. and was over it quite fast. i liked the film, but as a superman geek critic, saw flaws, at least imo. the following below. dissapointed me

too much jor-el
was not a fan of the avatar like flying scenes in krypton. no no no
lois lane in space and shooting a laser gun like rambo. has she even held a gun before?
lois seemed to be everywhere all the time
some cgi flying scenes looked too fake.. wth? was it the cheap cgi?
whats up with the blueish grayish color tint to almost all the film?
the constant BRIGHT flash in ur eyes
the woobling cameras of some scenes.. that really irked me
pa kent deaths was sad, but all the STRONG winds of the tornado didn't even budge him at all while standing by the car, well until he was taken or blown away
metropolis was just completely BLOWN UP.. super catches lois while falling and then immediately they make out / kiss.. in the middle of it all? seriously? that scene was totally off. if any scene where they could have kissed was in the corn field imo.. i think any kiss scene should have slowly been worked in.
some of the extras really bad acting poking their heads out to see if it was safe to look out? another scene people looking up (in downtown metropolis while the ship is destroying the city) like no harm is near them?
the lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng never ending fight with zod, building after building being destroyed or falling. way too much to take it in.. or trying to figure out what is going on

did Michael Bay direct all the fight / builidng destruction scenes?

lois again being there at the right place at the right time for superman.. he was flying all over the place and then oh.. there she is again?! perfect timing?

i think thats all.. unless i think of anything else

i give the film 50/50.. score was great. great casting. now lets hope pt 2 is directed much better.

I give it a 7 out of 10. I would have ranked it higher except the movie lacked a "fun" appeal. It was often dark and dreary both in tone and (as my ole buddy Carlo Da Man mentioned) in the camera tint as well. The movie just felt too serious.

However, I did enjoy both of Clark's fathers performances especially by Russell Crowe. I liked seeing him throughout the film and felt it was a new spice to the mythology, like an extra pinch of salt.

*Spoiler alert*

*

*

I didn't read the prior pages of this thread so don't shoot me if someone else has said it, but the Kryptonians knew their planet was going to be destroyed, so why did they send Zodd and his lackies to the Phantom Zone thereby ensuring their survival??? I believe in prior mythologies, the Zodd exile happened years before the planet's destruction, so it would make sense for this particular brand of Kryptonian justice. I just couldn't help but wonder how horrible a punishment it is to send a group of criminals AWAY from a planet that's about to blow up. They should have just sent them to a dungeon to await their inevitable death instead.

Also, I saw no reason for the planet's gene code codex thing to be added to the story. It didn't seem to make one iota of difference. Zodd should have just been out to kill Clark due to revenge, not some unnecessary sci-fi conceit.

On the plus side, I loved the new costume and thought Henry Cavill was a great supes. Amy Adams was a little too drab for me as Lois Lane. Yes, she was adventurous, but her beauty didn't shine through on camera. She blended in with the drab world too well. For my money, I'm far more attracted to Erica Durance in the role.

Supes and Bats on deck!!!!!! I am beyond stoked for this. The follow up to MOS will address the controversial ending and the effects on Superman in this next film. Now I have to play the waiting game again lol 2015 seems like eternity. It will be fun to follow the casting of Batman, though.

One of the many stupid things that happen on this movie... Clark goes to talk to a priest instead of his father about what to do about Zod... Check this out, it's both funny and true!

it's funny, but i believe clark went to the priest because he was looking for someone to talk to that would be as neutral as possible, and confidential. he wasn't really seeking strategy so much as existential guidance.
interestingly, the makers of that video LOVED the movie. they even poke fun at classic films. what they really illustrate, is not that these movies are stupid- they illustrate how short and unsatisfying movies would be if every choice that a character made was the most logical one.